IMPORTANCEPropranolol has become the first-line therapy for problematic infantile hemangiomas (IHs) that require systemic therapy. However, different adverse events have been reported during propranolol treatment. The positive efficacy and safety of atenolol raise the question of whether it could be used as a promising therapy for IH.OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy and safety of propranolol vs atenolol in infants (between age 5 and 20 weeks) with problematic IHs who required systemic therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label clinical trial conducted in collaboration among 6 separate investigation sites in China from February 1, 2015, to December 31, 2018. A total of 377 patients met the criteria for inclusion and were randomized to the propranolol (190 [50.4%]) and atenolol (187 [49.6%]) groups. Data were analyzed in June 2020.INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomized to receive either propranolol or atenolol for at least 6 months. They completed efficacy assessments at 2 years after the initial treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was any response or nonresponse at 6 months. The key secondary outcome was changes in the hemangioma activity score. RESULTSOf 377 participants, 287 (76.1%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 10.2 (4.0) weeks in the propranolol group and 9.8 (4.1) weeks in the atenolol group. After 6 months of treatment, in the propranolol and atenolol groups, the overall response rates were 93.7% and 92.5%, respectively (difference, 1.2%; 95% CI, −4.1% to 6.6%). At 1 and 4 weeks after treatment, and thereafter, the hemangioma activity score in the atenolol group aligned with the propranolol group (odds ratio, 1.034; 95% CI, 0.886-1.206). No differences between the propranolol group and atenolol group were observed in successful initial responses, quality of life scores, complete ulceration healing times, or the rebound rate. Both groups presented a similar percentage of complete/nearly complete responses at 2 years (82.1% vs 79.7%; difference, 2.4%; 95% CI, −5.9% to 10.7%). Adverse events were more common in the propranolol group (70.0% vs 44.4%; difference, 25.6%; 95% CI, 15.7%-34.8%), but the frequency of severe adverse events did not differ meaningfully between the groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this randomized clinical trial, when compared with propranolol, atenolol had similar efficacy and fewer adverse events in the treatment of infants with problematic IHs. The results suggest that oral atenolol can be used as an alternative treatment option for patients with IH who require systemic therapy.
The Kasabach-Merritt phenomenon (KMP) in kaposiform hemangioendothelioma (KHE) is characterized by life-threatening thrombocytopenia and consumptive coagulopathy. This study compared the efficacy and safety of sirolimus plus prednisolone versus sirolimus monotherapy as treatment strategies for KHE with KMP in the largest cohort to date. Participants were randomized to receive either sirolimus in combination with a short course of prednisolone or sirolimus monotherapy for at least 12 months. The primary outcome was defined as achievement of a durable platelet response (platelet count >100×109/L) at week 4. Participants completed efficacy assessments 2 years after the initial treatment. At week 4, a durable platelet response was achieved by 35 of 37 patients given sirolimus and prednisolone compared with 24 of 36 patients given sirolimus monotherapy (difference 27.9%; 95% CI, 10.0% to 44.7%). Compared with the sirolimus monotherapy group, the combination treatment group showed improvements in terms of measures of durable platelet responses at all points during the initial 3-week treatment period, median platelet counts during weeks 1 to 4, increased numbers of patients achieving fibrinogen stabilization at week 4, and objective lesion responses at month 12. Patients receiving combination therapy had fewer blood transfusions and a lower total incidence of disease sequelae than patients receiving sirolimus alone. The frequencies of total adverse events and grade 3-4 adverse events during treatment were similar in both groups. The responses seen in patients with KHE with KMP were profound and encouraging, suggesting that sirolimus plus prednisolone should be considered a valid treatment for KHE with KMP. ClinicalTrial.gov, number NCT03188068
The basal ganglia are important for movement and reinforcement learning. Using mice of either sex, we found that the main basal ganglia GABAergic output in the midbrain, the substantia nigra pars reticulata (SNr), shows movement-related neural activity during the expression of a negatively reinforced signaled locomotor action known as signaled active avoidance; this action involves mice moving away during a warning signal to avoid a threat. In particular, many SNr neurons deactivate during active avoidance responses. However, whether SNr deactivation has an essential role driving or regulating active avoidance responses is unknown. We found that optogenetic excitation of SNr or striatal GABAergic fibers that project to an area in the pedunculopontine tegmentum (PPT) within the midbrain locomotor region abolishes signaled active avoidance responses, while optogenetic inhibition of SNr cells (mimicking the SNr deactivation observed during an active avoidance behavior) serves as an effective conditioned stimulus signal to drive avoidance responses by disinhibiting PPT neurons. However, preclusion of SNr deactivation, or direct inhibition of SNr fibers in the PPT, does not impair the expression of signaled active avoidance, indicating that SNr output does not drive the expression of a signaled locomotor action mediated by the midbrain. Consistent with a permissive regulatory role, SNr output provides information about the state of the ongoing action to downstream structures that mediate the action.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.